Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday September 14, 2011 @08:50PM
from the put-it-on-the-pile dept.

First time accepted submitter ElBeano writes "Google has continued to beef up its patent portfolio in the face of the onslaught from Apple and Microsoft. The best defense is a good offense. 'Google is building an arsenal of patents that the company has said is largely designed to counter a "hostile, organized campaign" by companies including Apple Inc. and Microsoft Corp. against the Android operating system for mobile devices. Google had already acquired 1,030 patents from IBM in a transaction recorded in July, and will obtain more than 17,000 with its $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc.'"

Cross licensing gets rid of the concept of one party still attacking another for the most part. Party A sues Party B: result Party A either gets money or Party B has to stop doing what they are doing. However if Party B has its own trove of patents, the idea of cross licensing comes through by Party B telling Party A "Hey, if you don't back that lawsuit off, we will sue you for patents x, y and z." At that point both parties are pretty much in a stalemate - so they agree that Party A can use patents x, y and z while Party B holds off suing them.

Both parties will pretty much want to keep doing what they are doing, so they rattle their sabres for a while until an equilibrium is reached with the patents.

If (like in this case) one of the parties is new to the group or bought up a bunch of patents, they can still be attacked - but they already know what their patents are worth to the other companies - they were likely already using them as part of some agreement previously. If they still get sued, they (as the new patent owners) can revoke previous agreements allowing the other companies use of their patents. If this happens, then basically the whole things starts from the beginning of this post until an equilibrium is reached.

I think what's really stupid about software patents is that you can't find out what part of your software is infringing on another company's patents. That's the idiotic part. Hardware patents, of course. Samsung can learn immediately what Apple's specific complaints are. But software patents remain hidden, so that Google can't go back and change whatever code is infringing on their competitor. You don't even need to get rid of patents. Just get rid of this ridiculous veil of secrecy garbage.

I think what's really stupid about software patents is that you can't find out what part of your software is infringing on another company's patents.

Sure you can. It's a huge amount of work, and generally not worth the effort, but it's certainly possible. And it's no different from hardware patents in that regard. What makes you think they're different?

>Sure you can. It's a huge amount of work, and generally not worth the effort, but it's certainly possible

It is also, legally speaking, a very bad idea. If you do research into patents you may infringe and miss one, then that research can be taken as evidence that you should have found what you missed. This makes you potentially liable for willfull infringement. The penalties of which are much higher.It is actually (especially if you're an indy coder) a very good idea to not do any checks for patent infr

Yep. Which is why attorneys always tell software engineers NOT to search for infringing patents. Odds are that you'll find plenty if you look, and that there's really no point in working around them because they'll never come up in a lawsuit... but if you looked, and you didn't fix or license, then you're willfully infringing and are liable for treble damages. All in all, it's better just not to look and to build up a big defensive portfolio in case you get sued.

They make it impossible for a small software company to be successful, because when it grows it will get sued and stand no chance. In the long run software patents mean that a small quasi-monopolistic cartel of large companies can control what software is produced. Either your with them by signing their contracts / selling your company, or you'll perish.

Software patents need to be stopped entirely. They do NOT work and stiffle innovation.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." They can pass the patents to Google and let Google take the heat and fight the fight and they can generally stay out of it - for them that's good. Besides, this will surely strengthen the Google-IBM relationship and I'm sure there were other terms and conditions set out on the transfer that will be beneficial to IBM.

It should further be noted that IBM has actually taken patents for things and allowed totally free use simply to prevent anyone from controlling some fundamental technology. As far as patents go they seem like the good guys.

It should further be noted that IBM has actually taken patents for things and allowed totally free use simply to prevent anyone from controlling some fundamental technology. As far as patents go they seem like the good guys.

I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, they seem to be fairly well behaved when it comes to software patents; you don't see IBM going out and trying to put its competitors out of business by threatening them with patent injunctions. (Although there was that one time [arstechnica.com].)

At the same time, I have to wonder how much of that is just circumstance. IBM is one of the strong proponents of the scourge of software patents outside of the patent lawyers who don't want to lose their jobs. And when you think abo

IBM is absolutely not on the good side when it comes to patents, they are on their own side. You will never see IBM make any move unless somewhere someone has calculated that it will make them profit. And they are very, very good at making that calculation, which is why they are still in business a hundred years later. Guaranteed Google paid them for these patents, more than they are worth to IBM, and that's why they got them.

IBM is not on the good side of the patent war. They make millions every year on patents alone. They nearly sued SUN into the ground, among other patents, for a patent on drawing a line. [forbes.com] Here is a quote by an IBM lawyer:

"maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"

Reminded me of IBM's siding with Oracle against Apache on the Java licensing dispute and backing OpenJDK. Then publicly lauding Oracle for putting Open Office under an Apache licence despite the disruption this would cause to the Document Foundation and Libre Office.

That's because it would then allow IBM to incorporate any improvements more quickly into Lotus (competitor to both OO and LO) while at the same time slowing down improvements to LO (because they would have to delay even longer to review, improve, and approve any of the new stuff) and simultaneously giving them (IBM) and Oracle a way to muscle things where the Document Foundation is concerned.

"maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"

I don't understand why Google and Apple don't just sit down and agree to let each other use all their patents. Then they really could compete on the strength of their own innovations, rather than wasting all this money on lawyers. The customers will go to the one who implements the patents better.

Because prior to Google buying the IBM and Motorola patents they had nothing to offer. Why would Apple (or Microsoft, or Samsung, or anyone else) let Google just use their patents when Google has nothing of value to offer them? That is just throwing away money. Now that Google has something to offer they are in a better position to make such a deal.

Maybe because Google lets them create search engines, for example, without bullying anyone with patents. Using patents to protect your lack of innovation and new ideas is simply evil. Google was never desperate enough so far.

"Because prior to Google buying the IBM and Motorola patents they had nothing to offer. Why would Apple (or Microsoft, or Samsung, or anyone else) let Google just use their patents when Google has nothing of value to offer them? That is just throwing away money. Now that Google has something to offer they are in a better position to make such a deal."

Yes, it's not that Google lacks really good patents, it's just that those really good patents are in things like search.

I don't understand why Google and Apple don't just sit down and agree to let each other use all their patents. Then they really could compete on the strength of their own innovations, rather than wasting all this money on lawyers. The customers will go to the one who implements the patents better.

Patents are part of the strengths of their own innovations. Or do you not get the point of innovation and patenting said innovation?

Yes, you can do that now, and you consider it obvious, because you have used a cell phone. You have used/seen different types of cell phones. You doubtless have read countless articles on how they work. You know what components are used in them.

Now, go back 30 years and tell us that you could have come up with a Droid or iPhone then. Not just a general idea (little handheld-device that lets you do things), but an actual, working, Droid or iPhone or equivalent. Remember, there were no Li-ion batteries,

GP is, I believe, referring to how the patent system fails to allow for innovations that are simultaneously developed independently, whether by complete strangers or by peers known to each other in their field.

It is a very strange belief that a bureaucracy enforcing the exclusive profit of singular entities within a society of billions of creative individuals will somehow ultimately encourage innovation to flourish, rather than stifle it.

Patents dictate that the fruits of your labors are not yours to trade as you wish, if any stranger you never met and never knew "invented" those fruits "first".

The only true benefit of patents is that they document the specifics of innovation, and this aspect does not actually require any grant of exclusivity.

GP is, I believe, referring to how the patent system fails to allow for innovations that are simultaneously developed independently, whether by complete strangers or by peers known to each other in their field.

It is a very strange belief that a bureaucracy enforcing the exclusive profit of singular entities within a society of billions of creative individuals will somehow ultimately encourage innovation to flourish, rather than stifle it.

Patents dictate that the fruits of your labors are not yours to trade as you wish, if any stranger you never met and never knew "invented" those fruits "first".

Sure, but that concept has always existed in property law, going back to Pierson v. Post. The first to possess something has ownership of it, regardless of the fact that the second person "worked really hard".

I think you misunderstand the point of the patent system. It's not a reward for hard work. It's a monopoly right, grudgingly paid for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure. As a result, "the fruits of your labors" are irrelevant - the important point is whether you disclosed those labors.
T

Now, go back 30 years and tell us that you could have come up with a Droid or iPhone then. Not just a general idea (little handheld-device that lets you do things), but an actual, working, Droid or iPhone or equivalent. Remember, there were no Li-ion batteries, no touch displays, no GSM, no ARM processors.

Except that Apple didn't invent any of those things. Apple didn't invent high powered batteries, or magnets, or touch screens, or multitasking, or GUIs, or outdoors LCDs, or browsers, or even phone number

All Apple ever did was copy other people's ideas and stick them into shiny boxes.

So you're basically saying Apple's success is only due to their shiny boxes? I sincerely hope you don't believe that, or you've missed the entire picture. It looks as if you have nothing to do in an Apple-related thread. As someone said, nothing's worse than Apple fanbois. Except Apple haters.

I'll fix it for you then:

All Apple ever did was copy other people's ideas and stick them into usable boxes.

Because with the iPhone, for the first time, my grandma was able to use SMS, email, Maps, etc... That's an achievement that prior to the iPhone I though could not be done. Ever.

I didn't say Apple invented anything. Who invented the stuff is immaterial. The topic of the thread was 'do patents encourage innovation', not 'look what Apple has invented'.

The OP was putting forth the ridiculous premise that just because he could build his own cell phone, it was somehow proof that there is nothing innovative in cell phones, therefore patents are useless. He (and a lot of other people on this thread) conveniently ignore the thousands and thousands of innovations (mostly patented) that

To get from where we were 30 years ago to where we are now took thousands and thousands of innovations, damn near all of them patented. So yes, undeniably patents encourage innovation.

Where exactly is this "undeniable" causality? Wouldn't anybody be interested in selling me a better phone without patents? How many innovations were blocked by patents? If I invent something I probably would take out a patent, because the system makes those very valuable both to defend with, cross-license and sell. But it is much like paying protection money to the Mafia, it doesn't mean a corrupt system is good only that you make the best of it.

Except that reading the patents, and most especially software patents, is a complete waste of time. You won't learn anything because patents are written by lawyers, perhaps in consultation with an engineer to help obfuscate with technical buzz words, to be (a) as broad and as general as possible with vague wording so as to enable as many interpretations as possible (b) completely useless to anyone actually trying to base an implementation off of the patent documents. Finally, actually searching for and read

When the patent portfolios of a handful of the biggest corporations reaches critical mass, there won't be a single inventor or innovator who is safe or whose ideas are protected. It will stifle innovation in a much worse way than any "counterfeiting" or "piracy" ever could. There's a good chance that we've already reached that point.

No, I don't believe there is any longer a single valid argument for "intellectual property" laws, of any kind. Not trademark, not copyright, and certainly not patents.

As I said in a post above, think about what cell phone technology was 30 years ago. Now think about where it is today.

I never said IP was never of value. I'm saying it is no longer of value, and is doing more harm than good.

And regarding your example of "cell phone technology", when you look at the overall cost to benefit ratio for society, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere near our money's worth. The fact that there are fewer company-paid cell phones in employees hands is a good indication of my point

There are payoffs from invention besides patents; some provide a market advantage until the competition copies it; some bolster the brands image providing something REAL in the mountain of advertizing BS.

Without patents, many things would still have happened. Companies would hold onto secrets more than they do today... A HUGE amount of actual influential inventions come from outside private industry; we foolishly undermine all of those under the misconception it all comes from business when it did not. They

I didn't say they are STILL patented, I said they were patented when they were developed. If you remove ANY of those links in the chain (let's say starting with the invention of the transistor), you don't wind up at 'cell phone'.

I don't know what the time limit of patents should be. However, 5 years is certainly way too short. If you invent something like a new, small, powerful battery, or a new display screen technology, or a new processor, or a new chip manufacturing process, it could take 5 years bef

You do have a valid point. however companies do this anyway "with" patent laws, and the major problem being almost any idea is patentable, so good chance after I'd invested all my time and effort it would violate a patent anyway, leaving me with nothing, except the LAW says i can't go forward trying to compete in the market, instead of just a competitor trying to make it difficult for me.

with existing infastructure, whats stopping megacorp stealling my ideas, making a living mint in china and destroying my

I see your product and immediately imitate it. I have factories in China that can produce it cheaper than what you can do here in a local wharehouse with only a few workers on an assembly line.

Even with patents, you already won.

A small business owner has very few patents. Maybe one. Maybe 3 or 4. You on the other hand have an army of lawyers on hand. You can pay them to find a loophole in those patents you have and exploit them. Or you can check which of your 500 patents is broad enough to apply to anything

Easy. As a CEO of Walmart you need assurances that products will sell. You sell your shelf space illegally at a premium where every producer pays you whether the product sells or not and they take the loss if it doesn't. That way you make money either way.

All that is entirely independent of what product ends up on the shelf, so I don't see what that has to do with anything.

A cool new product is here. One guy owns it and the other guy has marketing power to threaten you and he can produce it cheaper and buy

If it's all the same with you, I'd like to put food on the table during and after the extended period of 12-16 hour days required for endevour that results in the creation something of high value.

I've made my living and supported my family for nearly 25 years entirely from my creative output, so don't play the "Oh, I work so hard so don't I deserve government protection?" bullshit with me. I converted to CC and public domain for my work starting in 2003 and it has not reduced my income. If anything, it's

Does the patent war strike anyone else as being very similar to the nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.?

"Look at us! Metaphorically-speaking, that is, because we don't want you looking too closely! We have lots of non-specific weapons we will never use because they would do as much damage to us as they would to you! We can't tell you exactly which of your assets they threaten, but just know that we have more of whatever we have than you have of whatever you have! So don't even think about

1023 patents, 17000 patents... with numbers like these, how many of those could possibly be inventions actually worthy of patent protection?Any company that can publish more than, say, 1 patent per month, hasn't put in the effort or investment that patents are supposed to protect.

It isn't "protection" so much as it is "ammunition" -- someone has come to Google pointing a gun and sticking them up. Google must then go out and acquire their own weapons so that they can negotiate peace from a stronger position.

There is no element of "backdating" -- Apple or Microsoft or whoever was always violating the patents that Google now has, it's just that the then-owner had not yet attempted to enforce them. After Google buys the patents, they can threaten to enforce the patents if the initial ag

Actually this is more likely to stop the patent wars in this part of the industry then set them off.

The thing with software patents is that their primary effect (other than to allow patent trolls to hold up people who make stuff) is to prevent a new player from entering an existing market. The existing players have a whole arsenal of software patents and anybody who wants to enter the market will be infringing a slew of them no matter what, so the existing players can sue them and enjoin them legally from entering the market. And most of the time the new entrant knows that ahead of time and just doesn't bother.

In this case the new entrant was Google, so what happened is that everybody who had been in the market for a while and had a patent arsenal started to shake them down and demand high royalties or try to keep their products off of the market, because Google has never been in the mobile device market before and so didn't have a relevant patent arsenal with which to ward of the incumbents' attacks.

What Google is doing now is buying their way into the club. (Notice that only large companies sitting on a mountain of cash can do this -- the little guy is fucked.) If they buy these billions of dollars worth of patents then they can threaten the incumbents in the same way that the incumbents are threatening them, and at the end of the day they all just end up cross-licensing and Google becomes one of the incumbents going forward.

At that point companies can go back to competing based on merit, but only those companies that can afford to buy their way into the market. The patent system excludes everyone else.

because Google has never been in the mobile device market before and so didn't have a relevant patent arsenal with which to ward of the incumbents' attacks

That's not really true though, is it. Apple also hadn't really been in the mobile/cell market either, but they came out with a phone with a ton of new inventions in it. The existing players couldn't sue Apple because they needed to look and work like the iPhone. Apple invents new things.

The real problem Google had entering the mobile device market is that they didn't add anything new at all. They just copied existing phones (iPhone). Google is like Microsoft, just improving and executing on other peopl

Apple entered the mobile market screaming to everyone how unfair it was that they had to actually pay something for all those real inventions others like nokia were having.They refused to cross license their "innovative" designs etc, sued everyone over those, while holding up real patentholders in any way they could, Nokia finally got something from apple after the iphone selling for over 3 years.

And now apple happily turns around and does the exact same thing to the newco

interestingly till google entered mobile market companies that were there before were in some kind of peace or no-fighting mode. Apple came with its one asshole takes all attitude and see what happens. I could hardly believe they actually sued Nokia - I mean how stupid this IP thing can actually get? Is it not obvious that it actually (in its current form) is a hurdle not a help for the industry? Just wonder - when next well paid report on how good patent trolls are for human kind arrive.

Sun Tzu, "The Art of War", Section VI, Lines 1-2: [wikisource.org]1. Sun Tzu said: Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted.2. Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.

Actually, no. I think the metaphor is falling apart - the companies are not yet in a battle. They are building their armies for one, and engaging in indirect warfare (see: the anti-trust actions), but they have not yet sued each other. Whichever company sues first will probably have better chances, but for some reason nobody has yet. Probably because, once one lawsuit goes out, other companies will pile on. If Google sues Apple, Apple will file countersuit, but which one will Microsoft sue? It's like Wester

I hope that Google will make them regret their attacks. I hope Google will ask them to pay for some of their news patents. As to cover the costs of defending themself and a some more just to make their points about the affair.

While you might not agree with software patents, they are in currently part of the legal system. There is an obligation on all corporations to follow the law until such time as the law gets changed.

Then you had better look in a mirror, because if Apple and Microsoft were not currently violating a litany of third party patents then there would be nothing for Google to buy to use as leverage. But there is, because it is not feasible to produce nontrivial software that does not infringe arbitrary third party software patents.

Paying money as part of a cross license agreement is kinda standard practice in the technology industry

So was paying money to mobsters back in the day.

While you might not agree with software patents, they are in currently part of the legal system.

Which is why I never said "patents are illegal", but said that patents are an immoral extortion racket. The fact that our legal system currently endorses immoral extortion rackets is a flaw, not a feature.

Go back and look at the history. Nokia and Motorola started the patent wars attacking Apple.

And Apple, rather than finding some quiet resolution, got out their torches and spread the fire all over the place by suing everyone in the market, including the Android phone makers who had never sued Apple to begin with.

The only people currently directly suing Google is Oracle and judging by the Lindholm email they have very good reason to.

The Lindholm email stands for nothing but the proposition that Google at one time considered negotiating a license for Java. It has nothing to do with whether Dalvik infringes the same copyrights or patents or whether the patents are even valid.

Microsoft and Apple both are sitting on many $10Billion's of cash. Paying a couple dollars to them to license technology which has obviously been copied isn't going to give with company and more of an advantage in the market place than they already have.

And judging from Oracle trying to nuke stuff on the old Sun website and what archive.org found (http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20110810152617279), I'd say that Oracle is trying to pull a fast one.

I wonder if Oracle failing to recover the old website (which was conveniently nuked on the eve of trial) counts as spoliation of evidence.

First, Google *is* paying Microsoft licensing for various things in their Android phones. However, this transaction only applies to the Android phones made by Google. They do not apply to the Android Phones made by others.

Google knew there was patent issues and they actually resolved them BY LICENSING THE VARIOUS PATENTS.

The evil part is that even though Google knew there were patent issues, they invited every other manufacturer to go ahead and just use the

Google knew there was patent issues and they actually resolved them BY LICENSING THE VARIOUS PATENTS.

The evil part is that even though Google knew there were patent issues, they invited every other manufacturer to go ahead and just use the OS without getting their own licenses. Google fucked everyone.

That's a pretty extrordinary claim. I'd really like to see some sort of proof. Specifically that (a) google licensed the relevant patents and (b) google encouraged others to violate them. That's no joke, a citation that backs up those claims would go right into my bookmarks.

Yeah because in your world open source should not exist. Only Dear Leader Jobs and his minions are the only ones should be able to write code. Fuck this 'all your code are belong to us' mentality. You Apple goons that are supporting this hostility towards open source should be ashamed of yourselves. When Apple takes from open source and builds upon it its ok with you goons, When Apple tries to sue open source to oblivion thats OK too. The hypocrisy is incredible. The notion that you cannot sit dow

Apple have often refused to license their patents..Microsoft probably would, but the fees they demand would make it impossible to give android away for free, and would make it more expensive than windows mobile.

But this is exactly what economic theory predicts. Intervene in the market with good intentions -- e.g. create monopoly profits for innovators -- and watch your "new" rules being exploited by rent-seekers, who then use the monopolistic profits to lobby for furthering the rules, further hampering the economy. The theory is very clear and explicit about it -- and has always been ignored in favor of patents.

The other prediction of the theory is that since the profit/loss is unevenly distributed (many people ha

We couldn't conduct honest business without it. Remember, trademark is about consumer protection, but it also protects a business.

You could spend years building up a product that the consumers love (say ice cream), obtaining a reputation for quality, and someone could come out with a cheap crap copy and sell it under your name. Now the reputation of your product is ruined, many consumers were screwed because they expected quality and got junk, you can't sell any more product because nobody will touch it, eq